Vinay Harpalani: Unionization: Employees together in a struggle for power

Today and tomorrow, a group of Penn graduate students, including myself, will vote on unionization. The debate on this issue has waged for two years, marked by GET-UP's vigorous grassroots campaign and vehement opposition from University administrators. Much of the University's opposition has been rooted in misleading rhetoric, as illustrated well on Monday by my fellow columnist Dan Fishback. His column nicely debunked the administration's myths regarding the consequences of unionization on stipends, bargaining units and other matters. Nevertheless, one broader issue that deserves greater consideration is the false dichotomy of "student" or "employee" that the administration has applied to the debate. Clearly, we are both students and employees. Moreover, these dual, overlapping, identities are reflected in the fundamental structure of the University. We are primarily students in relation to faculty and primarily employees in relation to administration. And the key issues involved in these relationships are pretty simple -- trust and power. Some have claimed that unionization would hinder scholarly inquiry and faculty-student relations, both of which are essential to academic institutions. Indeed, for Ph.D. candidates, who compose most of the graduate student bargaining unit, good relationships with faculty mentors are essential. These relationships define our roles as students and eventually as intellectual colleagues. The ideal graduate student-faculty partnership is very personal; it involves a mutual sense of trust and an exchange of ideas. And although many mentor-student pairings fall far short of this ideal, there are some of us, like myself, who do have such an outstanding rapport with our mentors. But we have relationships not only with faculty mentors, but also with University administrators -- within our schools and the entire University. This relationship is primarily procedural and economic rather than intellectual. It is the venue where decisions about our graduate stipends and benefits are made. And this is where we are graduate employees. Of course, there is significant overlap between the two areas. Administrators do determine our academic requirements, with faculty input. Faculty members serve on committees that make administrative decisions, such as those involving funding, and these decisions are influenced by faculty grants and by students' academic performances. And some professors, such as department chairs, serve in dual roles as faculty and administrators. But no one seems to question that they can balance these two roles -- which often have different priorities. When they are administrators, professors act in a very different capacity than when engaging their doctoral mentees. They partake not in scholarly discourse here, but in the practical economic realities of University funding. The frequent conflicts between faculty and administration are well known within all universities. And yet, this duality is necessary for these institutions to function. Similarly, graduate students/employees can and must navigate their dual roles. And contrary to the rhetoric, unionization serves to insure that our scholarship is not hindered by economic concerns. By unionizing, we enter into an economic bargaining relationship with administrators. And there is no reason why this would compromise intellectual exchange with our faculty mentors -- even if they, too, must balance dual roles. As unionized graduate students/employees, we would also have a responsibility to consider both of our roles in contract negotiations. The administration posits implicitly that we are not capable of such reconciliation; they assume that we seek to destroy the academic fabric of the University. Ironically, they trust us to teach undergraduate students and to work on important research projects. Why don't they trust us as graduate students/employees to balance our dual roles fairly? Essentially, the University's opposition to unionization is an effort to maintain its power to determine our stipends, benefits and working conditions. Currently, our voice on these issues is GAPSA, along with student organizations in the different graduate schools. This voice merely poses recommendations; it lacks any legal sanction. By unionizing, we force the University to incorporate our needs within negotiated contracts. Power, more than tangible consequences of unionization, is the key issue. The exact consequences will depend on the terms that we, as graduate students/employees, will decide in negotiation with the administration. GET-UP's proposals do not call for uniformity but rather flexibility -- with fairness -- in working conditions and stipends. I am confident that these terms will balance our dual roles as students and employees. With our votes today and tomorrow, we are essentially deciding whether or not we want more power over defining our own graduate school experiences. Some administrators do not trust us to exercise this power responsibly. But I believe strongly that exercising this power would make us better students and employees. That's why I will vote yes on unionization. Vinay Harpalani is a Ph.D. candidate in Education and a Master's candidate in Bioethics from Newark, Del.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.